---

Terrorism Bill

I should like to look at these matters much more generally than in terms of the two companies to which reference has been made. I fully agree that the amendment is no doubt defective and that it is probably wrong in proposing to use control orders as a mechanism for dealing with the problem identified. But that problem seems to be the great vulnerability of a wide range of sites. I shall give one example. There was a recent serious fire in a fuel depot, which the media promptly hyped up into a risk of serious air pollution covering the whole London metropolitan area. Fortunately it did not come to that but, under different circumstances, it might have done. Therefore, how far does positive vetting of contractors’ personnel, who already have access to these vulnerable sites, extend? How thorough is it? Who is in charge of such positive vetting? No doubt the Government will say that, where it is a commercial site, the commercial operators of the site are responsible for their own vetting. But there are a large number of government sites in varying degrees of vulnerability, and surely the Government should put their own house in order and set a good example to the commercial and private sector. I look forward to any further information that we can be given.